Starship and a Human city on Mars

[Carl Sagan]

Great to have the first UK spaceport approved for vertical rocket launches. The future is unfolding before our eyes. 

 

[Stive Pesley]

An interesting update if you can bear an hour of him 

Quote

 "If it had had a payload, it would have made it to orbit. Because the reason it didn't quite make it to orbit was we vented the liquid oxygen, and the liquid oxygen ultimately led to fire and an explosion ... we normally wouldn't have had that liquid oxygen if we'd had a payload so, ironically, if it had had a payload it would have reached orbit."

Sounds like he's pushing for a manned flight sooner rather than later. Any volunteers? 

[Stive Pesley]

An excellent article here which covers all the reasons why 

https://lasp.colorado.edu/mop/files/2019/08/Humans-Will-Never-Colonize-Mars.pdf

 

[cstand]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

An excellent article here which covers all the reasons why 

https://lasp.colorado.edu/mop/files/2019/08/Humans-Will-Never-Colonize-Mars.pdf

 

It’s better to follow your dream and enjoy the experience even if you ultimately fail. 

Also the spin offs from SpaceX, science, technology, engineering and data collection will be incredibly beneficial to society.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 19 by cstand

[TigerTedd]

2 hours ago, cstand said:

It’s better to follow your dream and enjoy the experience even if you ultimately fail. 

Also the spin offs from SpaceX, science, technology, engineering and data collection will be incredibly beneficial to society.

 

 

 

 

Star link, for example. I’m a big fan of that. 

[TigerTedd]

4 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

An excellent article here which covers all the reasons why 

https://lasp.colorado.edu/mop/files/2019/08/Humans-Will-Never-Colonize-Mars.pdf

 

Go back in time to the 16th century and tell them we’ve been to the moon. They won’t believe you.

these are all just problems to be solved, and humans are nothing if not problem solvers. 

[Carl Sagan]

15 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

An excellent article here which covers all the reasons why 

https://lasp.colorado.edu/mop/files/2019/08/Humans-Will-Never-Colonize-Mars.pdf

It's interesting the piece quotes a lot of Martin Rees, but we were out last night and he was actually far more positive about human boots on Mars than I expected. Partly it was because Bob Zubrin was there, supposedly for a debate about using humans or robots to explore Mars, with Bob famously a "boots on the ground" person and Martin famously for robotic exploration. But in the end they only disagreed on timeframes, and partly because it was a good debate and Zubrin was extremely persuasive on why it will happen, and I think Rees was prepared to be convinced by the answers. The point of difference was that Zubrin thinks we will terraform Mars to allow people to live on the surface (and explains how that might happen relatively quickly) while Rees thinks instead of adapting Mars to humans, the humans on Mars will use genetic engineering to adapt themselves and their offspring to the existing planet - forming the first post-human society.

I've probably mentioned on here before that Zubrin's book The New World on Mars: What We Can Create on the Red Planet (which I'm publishing) comes out here in August. Sadly Martin's only part way through writing his book so that one will take a little while longer! But Zubrin makes a compelling case for why and how it will happen. If Musk stays on course then as early as 2032 for the first crewed landings. If he doesn't, then enough of the groundwork has now been laid for it to happen in the 2040s.

[Carl Sagan]

Ship 28 and Booster 10 were stacked together on the Orbital launch mount last night in preparation for the 3rd integrated Flight Test. I'd expect it early in March, but there's still a chance we'll see something this month.

Ship 28 is one of the last first-generation Starships. A few others have also been built, but SpaceX has already begun constructing a newer model. At this stage all the ships and boosters are expected to fail at some point in the flight or, if not, they'll be ditched in the sea. It won't be until later in the year until we start seeing these land on their return from orbit.

[Bigunder]

For an analog, have a look at Antarctica habitation by humans in winter. Coastal research stations since the 1950s have sustained people in very artificial circumstances and there are around 1000 scientists and support workers over winter there. 

It's much easier to reach than any planet, and has plentiful supply of air and water and is easy to resupply but in 70 years there has not been anything significant other than science there. Because there is no other reason to go. 

If there was a very large oilfield or some other lucrative mineral discovered there, then this might change and the Antarctic Treaty might not stand up too well. 

Edited February 12 by Bigunder

[Carl Sagan]

1 hour ago, Bigunder said:

For an analog, have a look at Antarctica habitation by humans in winter. Coastal research stations since the 1950s have sustained people in very artificial circumstances and there are around 1000 scientists and support workers over winter there. 

It's much easier to reach than any planet, and has plentiful supply of air and water and is easy to resupply but in 70 years there has not been anything significant other than science there. Because there is no other reason to go. 

If there was a very large oilfield or some other lucrative mineral discovered there, then this might change and the Antarctic Treaty might not stand up too well. 

The reasons to go to Mars versus, say, Antarctica, are (at least) threefold. 

 

One is that we currently inhabit a closed system, even with Antarctica. And it's widely acknowledged Earth has already exceeded what's called its "carrying capacity", meaning we're already overloaded. Unsustainable over and medium time frame, either we need more raw materials or we opt for degrowth, which means your children having a terrible time of it, and their children way worse. And, as Humans squabble over what's left, they'll probably destroy themselves. 

 

Which takes us onto the next point, that by not having all our eggs in one basket, even if something terrible happened to Earth, Humanity, creativity, intelligence and more could go on. Once we build a society away from Earth on Mars, it's far easier to build other off-world colonies. 

 

Then, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky once wrote: 

"Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot live in a cradle forever" 

Going to Mars frees us from this cradle of the mind. It gives us a whole new frontier to stimulate dynamism and creativity. It gives us a whole new view of our place in the Universe. Leaving behind the parochial mindset that Earth is somehow special and the only place for Humans, it transforms us with a new mindset, to boldly go and spread complexity, goodness, curiosity, art, science and love out among the stars. Given the potential numbers of Humans and post-Humans who can live after us, going to Mars now is the most ethical thing we can do, as it will lead to the most good being done in the future Universe. 

[Bigunder]

I love the idealism, but a terra formed Mars or a Mars isolated bio-container is likely to be even more fragile than Earth's environment. 

On the scale of the galaxy, let alone the Universe, our entire solar system is barely more significant than the earth itself, so moving within it is not a huge step on a universal scale. 

And the saddest of all, human nature isn't capable of changing mindset, it would carry its problems with it. Namely there will always be some that are of nefarious intention and often that some are the ones most determined to seek positions of authority or leadership.

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, Bigunder said:

On the scale of the galaxy, let alone the Universe, our entire solar system is barely more significant than the earth itself, so moving within it is not a huge step on a universal scale. 

Not a huge step for mankind, but one giant leap for the generations to come. 

[Carl Sagan]

3 hours ago, Bigunder said:

I love the idealism, but a terra formed Mars or a Mars isolated bio-container is likely to be even more fragile than Earth's environment. 

On the scale of the galaxy, let alone the Universe, our entire solar system is barely more significant than the earth itself, so moving within it is not a huge step on a universal scale. 

And the saddest of all, human nature isn't capable of changing mindset, it would carry its problems with it. Namely there will always be some that are of nefarious intention and often that some are the ones most determined to seek positions of authority or leadership.

The solar system is just a stepping stone. As more technologies develop, we will go beyond, but you can't run before you can walk. And Mars has all the raw materials to be viable. And as much land mass as all the continents on Earth.

And Human nature and Humans ourselves will evolve - who knows what wonders our descendants will become. But we are here alive at the start of it all. The time future Humans and postHumans will look back on and thank us for.

[Highgate]

11 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

The reasons to go to Mars versus, say, Antarctica, are (at least) threefold. 

 

One is that we currently inhabit a closed system, even with Antarctica. And it's widely acknowledged Earth has already exceeded what's called its "carrying capacity", meaning we're already overloaded. Unsustainable over and medium time frame, either we need more raw materials or we opt for degrowth, which means your children having a terrible time of it, and their children way worse. And, as Humans squabble over what's left, they'll probably destroy themselves. 

 

Which takes us onto the next point, that by not having all our eggs in one basket, even if something terrible happened to Earth, Humanity, creativity, intelligence and more could go on. Once we build a society away from Earth on Mars, it's far easier to build other off-world colonies. 

 

Then, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky once wrote: 

"Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot live in a cradle forever" 

Going to Mars frees us from this cradle of the mind. It gives us a whole new frontier to stimulate dynamism and creativity. It gives us a whole new view of our place in the Universe. Leaving behind the parochial mindset that Earth is somehow special and the only place for Humans, it transforms us with a new mindset, to boldly go and spread complexity, goodness, curiosity, art, science and love out among the stars. Given the potential numbers of Humans and post-Humans who can live after us, going to Mars now is the most ethical thing we can do, as it will lead to the most good being done in the future Universe. 

I'm all for space exploration in principle, but it seems to me the timescales being thrown about are wildly optimistic.  Given the fragility of the human body and it's unsuitability for other worlds there is every reason to progress very cautiously.

Human population is projected to peak at about 11 billion before the end of the century and then fall from that point onwards, so there is every possibility we won't end up overpopulating this planet after all. 

Catastrophic events that will wipe us all out from space are a remote possibility, even if they are technically possible. The more realistic threats for extinction are already here on earth.  Nuclear War and deadly pandemics being the biggest two to spring to mind. Climate change, although potentially disastrous, is not a extinction level event for me. If surviving such events is really one of the principal reasons for building Mars colonies, then it's surely far easier to building self contained, isolated and safe colonies here on Earth that would survive those calamities...underground or even under the sea.  And much cheaper too. 

I don't think humanity's problem is that we think Earth is too special, our problem is rather is that we don't realize how special it really is. We take it far too much for granted. No matter how successful any potential explorations of space could be, we will never find any planet or moon as suitable for human life as this one. That's surely a given, seeing as we have evolved on Earth, and have billions of years of adapting to Earth's particular habitat behind us. Our physiology and anatomy has been determined by our home planet. 

Again, I am in favour of space exploration, it's a great source of scientific innovation among other things, but right now, given all the problems we face on this planet, our larger priority should be dealing with terrestrial issues. 

 

 

 

[Stive Pesley]

10 hours ago, Highgate said:

No matter how successful any potential explorations of space could be, we will never find any planet or moon as suitable for human life as this one. That's surely a given, seeing as we have evolved on Earth, and have billions of years of adapting to Earth's particular habitat behind us. Our physiology and anatomy has been determined by our home planet. 

Again, I am in favour of space exploration, it's a great source of scientific innovation among other things, but right now, given all the problems we face on this planet, our larger priority should be dealing with terrestrial issues. 

Well said. It's amazing that so many wannabe intellectuals refuse to acknowledge this. 

One thing is clear - to start a human colony on Mars would require huge amounts of adaptability, both physically and mentally. And yet those advocating for it don't even to seem to be able to cope with mild ridicule, or critical analysis

What is the melting point of a snowflake on Mars?

[TigerTedd]

6 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

Well said. It's amazing that so many wannabe intellectuals refuse to acknowledge this. 

One thing is clear - to start a human colony on Mars would require huge amounts of adaptability, both physically and mentally. And yet those advocating for it don't even to seem to be able to cope with mild ridicule, or critical analysis

What is the melting point of a snowflake on Mars?

Snowflakes will survive quite happily in mars. It’s incredibly cold there. 

[Carl Sagan]

23 hours ago, Highgate said:

I'm all for space exploration in principle, but it seems to me the timescales being thrown about are wildly optimistic.  Given the fragility of the human body and it's unsuitability for other worlds there is every reason to progress very cautiously.

Human population is projected to peak at about 11 billion before the end of the century and then fall from that point onwards, so there is every possibility we won't end up overpopulating this planet after all. 

Catastrophic events that will wipe us all out from space are a remote possibility, even if they are technically possible. The more realistic threats for extinction are already here on earth.  Nuclear War and deadly pandemics being the biggest two to spring to mind. Climate change, although potentially disastrous, is not a extinction level event for me. If surviving such events is really one of the principal reasons for building Mars colonies, then it's surely far easier to building self contained, isolated and safe colonies here on Earth that would survive those calamities...underground or even under the sea.  And much cheaper too. 

I don't think humanity's problem is that we think Earth is too special, our problem is rather is that we don't realize how special it really is. We take it far too much for granted. No matter how successful any potential explorations of space could be, we will never find any planet or moon as suitable for human life as this one. That's surely a given, seeing as we have evolved on Earth, and have billions of years of adapting to Earth's particular habitat behind us. Our physiology and anatomy has been determined by our home planet. 

Again, I am in favour of space exploration, it's a great source of scientific innovation among other things, but right now, given all the problems we face on this planet, our larger priority should be dealing with terrestrial issues. 

This is obviously a credible view, and I know others who advocate it. There's a lot of sense in your post. I would say the need to push now is because the window is short. If we don't do this soon, it may well be we never manage it.

That's partly because there will never be a good short- or even medium-term economic argument to do it. In the long term it's obviously beneficial, but no governments plan 100-200 years ahead. Then, after all the progress made by science and technology and the massive improvement in the Human condition they have wrought, we've reached a strange moment when many are turning away from that. It's a dangerous time with people openly talking about degrowth, and also actively shutting down scientific enquiry when it's seen as working against contemporary cultural values. 

But I would also say that the "Given the problems we face on this planet" line is unfair and ridiculous. Given the problems we face on this planet, why don't we give up football/videogames/archaeology/music/television etc to solve them? Why pick on space exploration? Especially when it's through space exploration, for instance studying atmospheres on Venus and Mars, and better measuring our own world, that we're also far better placed to address problems on Earth. 

[maxjam]

If we find water on the moon it will slash the cost of future missions. 

We'll no doubt have a manned operation there as well as Mars in the near future.

 

[Stive Pesley]

16 minutes ago, maxjam said:

If we find water on the moon it will slash the cost of future missions. 

We'll no doubt have a manned operation there as well as Mars in the near future.

 

Exciting times, but weird isn't it - that Intuitive Machines and Astrobotic manage to go about their business quietly and with little controversy. Admirable, one might say

 

 

 

[TigerTedd]

On 13/02/2024 at 01:01, Highgate said:

I'm all for space exploration in principle, but it seems to me the timescales being thrown about are wildly optimistic.  Given the fragility of the human body and it's unsuitability for other worlds there is every reason to progress very cautiously.

Human population is projected to peak at about 11 billion before the end of the century and then fall from that point onwards, so there is every possibility we won't end up overpopulating this planet after all. 

Catastrophic events that will wipe us all out from space are a remote possibility, even if they are technically possible. The more realistic threats for extinction are already here on earth.  Nuclear War and deadly pandemics being the biggest two to spring to mind. Climate change, although potentially disastrous, is not a extinction level event for me. If surviving such events is really one of the principal reasons for building Mars colonies, then it's surely far easier to building self contained, isolated and safe colonies here on Earth that would survive those calamities...underground or even under the sea.  And much cheaper too. 

I don't think humanity's problem is that we think Earth is too special, our problem is rather is that we don't realize how special it really is. We take it far too much for granted. No matter how successful any potential explorations of space could be, we will never find any planet or moon as suitable for human life as this one. That's surely a given, seeing as we have evolved on Earth, and have billions of years of adapting to Earth's particular habitat behind us. Our physiology and anatomy has been determined by our home planet. 

Again, I am in favour of space exploration, it's a great source of scientific innovation among other things, but right now, given all the problems we face on this planet, our larger priority should be dealing with terrestrial issues. 

 

 

 

A lot of people have a go at musk for spending his money on space when he could be spending it solving other problems.

But it’s not really Musk’s responsibility either way. He could be spending his money on hookers and yachts as many Uber rich people do. He’s decided that the space problem is important to him and he wants to devote a lot of resource to solving it. Many people will say it’s not the most pressing concern right now, but as @Carl Sagan it is, nevertheless, a concern that needs addressing. If Elon doesn’t do it, who will.

War, famine, global warming, wealth inequality, etc. these are all problems too. But it’s not only Elon’s job to fix them. There are other billionaires out there who could stick their billions behind these causes (like bill gates is very into his vaccines). Or, heaven forbid, world governments might even try to solve them. But now I’m just being fanciful. At least Elon has set himself a realistic goal.